Legal: Required by law.
Supreme: Superior to all others.
Pursuance: The carrying out of a plan or action.

Any law that contradicts the Constitution is not legal because the Constitution implies as much by claiming to be the Supreme Law of the Land:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" [1]

Firstly I would wish to poke a semantic attack at your definition of legal. You see if you were to define legal as 'required by law' then of course all laws are legal just as much as you require yourself... Quite ironic really.

Anyway onto my real debate...

The Constitution can be considered to be the bible of a Christian's life. It is a god guideline and has many sound principles but sometimes they must be 'bent' or shaped to fit the society with which a government is faced.

Any constitutional 'rule' is not definitely the most advisable in ALL situations a government is faced with. Sometimes the government must act in shocking ways for long-term benefits.

I'd like to explain that your semantic attack at my definition of legal is incorrect. The Constitution is the only law in the U.S.A. which claims to be supreme, so it trumps all other laws. If there were one other law which claimed to be supreme and ran contrary to the Constitution, then I would have to argue why one is legal and one is not. But that isn't the case, so my point still stands: Any law that runs contrary to the Constitution is not legal. My argument is not in conflict with the definition of legal, and thus there is no irony.

I contend that your semantic attack was actually the crux of your argument, so there is no need for me to present a rebuttal to what you referred to as your 'real debate.'

I don't need to prove that the Constitution is supreme to a government's amendment's of it. An amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution; you are asking me to prove that a part of the Constitution is superior to the Constitution as a whole, which makes no sense. I only need to prove that any law that contradicts the Constitution is not legal.

Think logically now, if you can amend it, you really could alter it any you wished, no?

The truth is my opponent has not offered A SINGLE CONTENTION WHATSOEVER to prove the supremacy of the Constitution.

Additionally they failed to refute why, if disobeying it would be a better form of leadership for a government at a certain time in that making a non-Constitutional law would better maintain harmony and well-being in their society then why not?

My opponent has neither rebutted my point (okay he tried by saying "The Constitution is Supreme") and has failed to assert a single piece of evidence to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution.

That is quite obviously self-evident, what it also protects against is the creation of any law with reference to any one particular religion. For example, if a bishop sought to pass a law censoring sexual images and videos as they contradict some catholic principle, this would be unconstitutional; the first amendment states that congress shall make no such law.

"the 1st amendment states that congress shall pass no law binding citizens to any religious law"

That's incorrect. The 1st Amendment doesn't forbid religious laws. It prevents laws that respect an establishment of any one religion. There is a huge difference. Differences in religion translates to different ways of worshiping God. Not the difference between religion itself, and lack of religion. Atheism, or lack of religion, is not necessarily respected under the Constitution.

You are correct, and here we arrive at the issue: If the 1st amendment states that congress shall pass no law binding citizens to any religious law or rule, how can any law violating this amendment not be regarded as unconstitutional?

My intent was to bring attention to your adherence to conservative religious beliefs at the expense of logic, which should be paramount. Your original resolution was quite admirable, "Any law that contradicts the Consitution is not legal", but in your last statement you seem to imply that it's fine to contradict the constitution if it is for religious purposes. Thereby conceding your entire resolution.

Deism ascribes morality from man not God, to phrase it bluntly deism suggests that a being created earth and life and did not intervene in their actions in any way. That was crass but, luckily, many literary figures have described it much more eloquently than I ever could. Secondly, if no religious laws can be made then society is not bound by any religious rule; which just so happens to be the definition of secularism.

The Declaration mentions Nature's God, which is a reference to deist philosophy. The Declaration simply announces the US's plans to seperate from Britain, it carries no legal representation. The 1st ensures no law respecting any one religion is ever legislated.

Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Okay, so, GarretKade kinda disproved himself in his opening round with his quote, yet RationalMadman never even contested this. Which sucks, because if he had, that would win him the debate. So I guess I reluctantly have to give arguments to Garret. Garret was also the only one to use sources, so he gets those too I guess. The conudct and spelling and grammar between the two was even enough.

Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited a statement supporting his perspective and Con never refuted it; Con argued the constitution's "rightness" but the point of debate was its "legality". I also noted more spelling errors on the part of Con, for example his statement that, "It is a god guideline."

Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the more convincing arguments. However, I'd point out a potential flaw in Pro's argument established in the Constitution itself and Pro's quote: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND". [Emphasis mine]. Con never addressed it, but that seems to contradict Pro's premise, as there could therefore be a law that "contradicts the Constitution", but that is in keeping with a treaty.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.